Only belief allowed, solutions?

Thank you very much! I understand now. We have an appointment with the architect on Thursday regarding the issue. Then we will go through all the variants in 2D for my wife. I would be immediately in favor of a higher knee wall and therefore no dormer/gable.

I'm glad that you have finally understood it. But it is also difficult when I imagine that a layperson is supposed to check everything. Especially when the terms get so mixed up. The proposal for a higher knee wall is subject to the condition that I have correctly interpreted the height information from the drawings (and in my opinion would create a little more space than needed). The variant with a small knee wall plus dwarf wall and then a dormer would cause a nominal reduction in area compared to the current plan, but in my opinion without any "area quality" loss.

Yes, I have actually understood it now. I was somehow completely confused. Especially because I believed, or had read, that Drempel and Kniestock are the same. The people from the building authority are luckily very relaxed. They couldn’t tell me where exactly the height of the eaves is measured from. Because in the development plan it says from the surface of the street or something like that, but we have quite a steep slope on the street. But they then said that it doesn’t matter, that they are not that precise about it. Now, however, we are anyway well below that. But if we should increase the kneestock, I think I have to address the issue again. Sometimes such leniency is also complicated.

The development plan states as above that the roof structures must not interrupt the eaves line and thus clearly allows dormers, in my opinion, but not cross gables. Your proposal apparently rests on falsely equating the legal eaves with the physical gutter. However, the legal eaves mean the figurative idea that one would break off the roof overhang with a vertical edge carried out above the outer wall. The idea that merely hanging a two-row-wide apron of roof tiles in front of a cross gable would reclassify it as a dormer is unfortunately naive from the building authority’s perspective.

That is known to me. I myself have dormers with a 50 cm roof overhang, which were also approved and look quite nice. But with a 1 m knee wall, you already have a 1.36 m windowsill height. (At a 45-degree roof pitch) Unimaginable at a 1.55 m knee wall.

I gladly repeat myself: the dormers look sh... and are completely out of place and unnecessary.

I have dormers with a 50 cm roof overhang myself, they were also approved and look quite nice. However, with a 1 m knee wall, there is already a 1.36 m windowsill height. (At a 45-degree roof pitch)

Are you trying to say that your municipality has (which it can do, but the one from likely will not do, in my expectation) taken a roof overhang as a reason to turn a blind eye and allow a dormer as a roof structure?
However, you should please illustrate the calculation with the windowsill height: the sole plate on the knee wall is usually less than ten centimeters higher than the floor structure – or have you calculated the knee wall including the sole plate and then added the wall thickness, which at 45° (tan 1.00) comes on top again?
(In my example, the inner edge of the knee wall would be meant.)

Hello, I need your help again :(
You had already hinted at it and now it is clearly showing, the architect/draftsperson (no idea what he is) is a disaster. The building application was full of errors. Now there are two disputed points.

First of all, the point that worries me the most. The architect did not designate the terrace on the garage as a terrace. I pointed this out to him. Now he says because of the boundary distance it is not possible (after we planned everything this way with the construction company and he initially said it would work).

But I read §8 (2) of the State Building Code RLP differently:

"

§ 8
Abstandsflächen
(1) Areas around the exterior walls of above-ground buildings must be kept clear (boundary distances). Within the buildable land areas, boundary distances are not required in front of exterior walls built on property boundaries if, according to planning regulations,
1.
the building must be built without a boundary distance, or
2.
the building may be built without a boundary distance and it is legally secured that the neighboring property is also built without a boundary distance.
If according to planning regulations a boundary distance must be kept, but there is a building without boundary distance on the neighboring property within the buildable land area, then construction without boundary distance may be permitted or required as well. If according to planning regulations a building must be constructed without boundary distance, but on the neighboring property within the buildable land area there is a building with a boundary distance, then a boundary distance may be permitted or required.
(2) The boundary distances must lie on the property itself. They may also lie on public traffic, green, or water areas, but only up to their midpoint."

Next to it is a public walking path/field path. It is at least 6 meters wide. Shouldn't that then be a public green area/traffic area and therefore no problem that we are only 1 meter from the property line with the garage with terrace on top?

Thank you very much! For the other disputed point, I have to scan the building documents, I will do that tomorrow and get back to you then.

Many kind regards!